Throw in some factually incorrect complaining about FISA warrants, and maybe some talk about Fox and Friends and you've got a full morning of EXECUTIVE TIME.

(This didn't seem to fit in the school shooting thread so putting it in here as we've talked about gun control)

I'm all for being able to protect yourself with your weapon in your home. I'm also good with in public if necessary to protect yourself or others.

This was not a justified shooting (not using legalese wording) from what I see in the video. McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground. Drejka took out his weapon to protect himself, and McGlockton backed away. If McGlockton stepped towards Drejka, it would be pretty clear case.

Relevant video at about the 1 min mark.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-gi...ry?id=56751894

When the guy backs off you're no longer standing your ground. You're committing murder.

If the roles were reversed the shooter would be headed to prison.

I do think there are situations where even backing off there could be a threat (e.g. he had a weapon) but in this specific video, there didn't seem to be a need to shoot.

The cops apparently don't agree. Not sure I understand why.

Remember Florida has no proportionality requirement for self-defense. That was a big point of contention and confusion in the Zimmerman/Martin case. If you're afraid you're going to be beat up by an unarmed man, you can use deadly force in response.

For the state to win they'd have to prove either that the shooter wasn't afraid of getting beat up and being injured, or that his belief was unreasonable. Was it reasonable to be afraid of being beat up after you've already been shoved to the ground, but after you draw a gun and your attacker takes a step or two back? Sounds like a case by case thing and something for a jury to decide, and could turn on all kinds of stuff we don't know like what words were exchanged and whether the shooter hit his head on the way down, but, Florida, unlike my state as one example, has specifically passed these statutes with the purpose of not "leaving it to the jury", and to dissuade prosecutors from bring charges in the first place in close cases. My state intentionally keeps the self-defense statutes vague so that cases can be dealt with more on a case-by-case basis based on general concepts of reasonableness, including the proportionality of the force used in self defense v. the force threatened.

Oddly, and he's not being charged either way so it doesn't matter, but under Florida law, it would have been even better for the shooter if he pulled his gun and shot immediately without giving the attacker a chance to react. It'd be pretty tough for the state to prove that the shooter weren't reasonably afraid at that point, right after he's shoved down.

Theoretically, couldn't the now deceased have come out and simply blown the other guy away feeling he was threatening his wife and kids and he was defending them?

Depends on what words were exchanged. I think it's probably more reasonable to be afraid of being beat up after you've already been shoved to the ground than it is during a heated argument (edit: and harassment) about a parking space. But if the shooter credibly threatened the other guy with violence, and the other was legitimately scared, than sure.

Yes - in a simple nutshell the laws in Florida are totally FUBAR and pretty much sponsored by the NRA.

(once my eldest son has left University here its incredibly likely I'll relocate to a state where someone can't just shoot me because I'm tall and they thought I looked scary ... seriously running at night around my neighborhood that is a thought I have when I come across another runner, I can see the police now being told "I was out walking the dog and I saw this dark figure running towards me and shot in self defense")

Would the fact that word comes out that the shooter has harassed others at this place before, or that these 2 had previously had run ins? Or is all that circumstantial and irrelevant to this case?

Totally irrelevant from my understanding of Florida law. But it does paint a picture of someone spoiling for a confrontation. It was released that he even threatened to kill someone in that parking lot in a previous incident.

Poetic justice here would have been the girlfriend shooting this overzealous cop wanna be because she felt threatened by him approaching her car.

The Florida law is way too loose and should have been tweaked after the Zimmerman incident. It basically gives license to guys with short dick syndrome to pick a fight and then commit murder.

I was having a convo with a woman who lives in Florida earlier and she explained something interesting about this. If the shooter was deemed physically able to defend himself (She used her husband as an example since he is larger and physically fit) the defense may not have worked. In other words, it is entirely possible that if the shooter and victim were reversed they could have brought charges against the shooter since he was way more physically imposing than Drejka.

He just trusts that his base has no perception of what is a statement and what a threat. Or understand who it is adressing. So for him the iranian president daring to speak the W-word is enough to make it personal.

Imagine someone 10/15/20 years ago telling you that your own President might just be the greatest risk to american national security. I certainly hope your checks and balances are ready for a stress test, especially if he gets a 2nd term and then wants to build a 'legacy' or if he decides to go out with a bang when re-relections seems impossible.

White House says Trump wants to revoke security clearances for former intelligence officials critical of him over Russia

Wapo has the story


This is very average, normal stuff to expect. Very typical in a liberal democracy. Move along.

I do think he was spoiling for a confrontation for sure. Not sure about "murder" though.

There's a lot to be said about heat of the moment, emotions, power and control, and guns and the mindset that goes with all that.

If this guy has a knife, no way he comes up aggressively stabbing if the guy goes to get in his car. Doesn't that speak more to the gun debate, rather than assuming that he's going in spoiling for 'murder'?

1) The shooter is an ass.

2) If you are not handicapped, don't use the handicap spot. It might not have mattered in this case, but if he had not parked there, would this have started? Heck, looking at the video, there are other parking spots, why take the handicap spot?

3) It does not look as though any words were exchanged between the shooter and the victim, it appears the victim saw what was going on and just shoved the shooter to the ground. Had he taken the time rather than reacting, would he have been shot?

4) I do not care what the commentators are saying, watch the video (I actually first watched it with the audio off), the victim shoved the shooter down, follows up the push, and does not back off until he realizes the shooter is reaching for something.

5) Rather than argue the gun laws, I think this once again goes back to mental health issues. Based upon what we know about the shooter, there seems to be some mental issues there, I will be interested to see if we find anything else out.

6) If this did not cross racial lines, would this make the national news? A similar thing happened in Memphis 10 years ago, white on white, shooter got 18 years.

7) Based upon how the law is written in Florida, the shooter should get off, however, morally he is at fault.

8) It is never worth it to be killed over a parking spot.

James Comey on Twitter: "Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."


+1

I wonder if the violator will be sent a fine.

My list:

1) If neither had a gun, the odds of this ending in death are almost zero.


That's my whole list.

Former officials usually don't keep their clearance. If they get a job, they have to reapply for clearance. Comey got offered it temporarily to read the IG report and turned it down.

True.

I do wonder if it would have ended with the shooter being beaten more severely? I'm okay with him pulling out a gun to make sure the beating doesn't continue but it doesn't sit well with me that there didn't seem to be an imminent threat after he pulled the gun and the other guy pulled back.

I recall reading that one of the factors why George Zimmerman got off was because it was shown he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him. Zimmerman wasn't right to pursue Martin but once he was on the ground, I do think that was a justified shooting.

EDIT: Looking at the video, I do wonder if shooter saw the step back? The perspective may be different when you are on the ground (especially after having been violently pushed to the ground).

Doubtful. This looked like a man who saw some guy screaming at his significant other, and acted on instinct to defend her. It's basically what men are TAUGHT that they should do (if the're really a "man").

Once the guy was down, the message was sent.

There really isn't a "great middle" in the country. Are Democrats supposed to target all those people who voted for Jeb Bush? Come on.

A better video. At 2:40'ish is the start of the confrontation. Two things I saw

1) The shover did advance after the shove
2) The shover took at least 2-3 steps back as the gun was drawn

No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

Paul Manafort trial delayed until the 31st and judge gave immunity to five people who will testify and announced names-mostly accountants it looks like.



Meanwhile Trump is looking to revoke the security clearances of his "enemies"-Clapper, Comey, Rice, Brennan, McCabe , and others.



https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/polit...ces/index.html

Dumb question but why would you keep a security clearance if you no longer work for the government? Genuinely curious. I was surprised they even had it unless they were some kind of consultant.

Talks about it a little bit in the article-some keep it to consult with those who follow in their jobs and some to get jobs in consulting field in the private sector.

I agree with him reacting to defend the girlfriend, the push was completely unnecessary. Again, we do not know what, if anything was said, but based upon the reaction, there was no time to say anything.

I also believe there is reason to believe that the victim may have done more harm to the shooter if the gun was not pulled.

What would be great was if there was an instigator law. The shooter clearly started the situation. If he starts the confrontation, he should be exempt from the protection of the stand your ground law.

If your girl needs defending you hit the guy hard enough to knock him out.

I'm as pro gun as you will find.
Legally duder probably walks.
Morally that's not a justified shooting. Ethically that's not a gun situation.


Just a whole bunch of stupid in this video.
I wish it were legal to beat, but not kill, morons who park in handicap spaces. Caring for a wheelchair bound relative for a number of years makes me sensitive to that issue.
Cop wannabes should be beaten as well. Yeah dude is an ass for parking in the HC spot, but who made shooter God to enforce that. Make a snarky comment and move along.
Still talking to the girlfriend didn't justify the shove. That needlessly escalated things.
The shove didnt justify the shot. Even more needlessly escalated.
Can we just accept that parking idiot is dead and sacrifice the shooter and call it better for the common good? (joking. sort of.)

Conceptually I like this idea. I'm not sure its practical though, probably a lot of grey in defining the "instigator".

Lawyers: Would the shooter be more at jeopardy if he had pulled the gun, but didn't fire? How do stand your ground laws work in that scenario?

Stormy Daniels is back on the market fellas!

Stormy Daniels and husband Glendon Crain file for divorce, lawyer Michael Avenatti says | Fox News

Simple answer. Because you may work for the government or more likely for a defense contractor in the future. Stripping someone of an active clearance forces a defense contractor to pay for a new clearance investigation.

There are many jobs that require you already have clearance before they will hire you.

My mother has never worked for the government, to my knowledge, but she was required to have a security clearance in the last job she had before she became a stay-at-home parent.

My guess is they had a government contract of some kind.

Correct. An active clearance is good for 7 years. You must have a reinvestigation completed before your current clearance expires. If you have an active clearance and work in a job that does not use it then it becomes inactive after 2 years.

There are many, many government jobs that require security clearances. Keeping an active clearance makes you more hirable because it will cost less to bring you in.

The chess (or checkers?) moves continues. There seems to be some progress after the summit.

The article implies the bold move of a peace treaty as the next move. I've always thought it was NK that did not want to formally end the war and do a peace treaty. The US should welcome those talks.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/polit...hae/index.html

I love this, a porn star marries another porn star, and files for divorce and lists adultery as the reason for the divorce... :lol:

The other thing about the security clearance to keep in mind is just because someone has a security clearance that does not mean that they automatically have access to all information within their clearance classification. At the very least, there is still a “need to know” standard that must be met.

Tariffs are great!

Subsidies are great!

How long until price controls are great?

Hopefully I can get a welfare payment even though I quit farming!

This has to be the low point in crisis management and it's beyond sad it might not even have an effect:

I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 24. Juli 2018

No president has been tougher on Russia? :lol:

yeah so tough when he just sat there meekly and didn't throw Mueller's indictments in Putin's face like your staff wanted.

That tweet deserves one particular smilie: :rolleyes:

It's like a game. This is one of dozens of Trump tweets that you can read as a sarcastic tweet from a Trump hater. But no - it's actually him tweeting it.

Ivanka's fashion line closing up shop:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanka-...9?redirect=amp

This is to set up his attempts to discredit and deflect from the Russia investigation after midterms. If Dems flip house and/or senate he's going to start screaming for an investigation into Russian interference.

Hmmmm... who will get the blame here?

Bezos 3-2
Democrats generally 8-5
Obama 4-1
Hillary 8-1
Schumer and/or Pelosi 10-1
Bernie 15-1
Crappy product 300-1

This is spot on and says all you need to know about the "genius" of Trump. It's just highly humorous for him to tweet how tough he has been when he basically came off as Putin's Cuckold post summit.